• Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About audiognostic

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Pope Johnson
  • Looking or Not Looking
    not looking

audiognostic's Achievements


Newbie (1/14)



  1. yes but its not really divorced from personal bias.. because even though we may not be making emotional decisions.. we are making rational decisions BASED on emotion.. Value judgments being in essense emotional.. as I have tried to state from the beggining.. Therefore the choice of career paths is.. which path is more emotionally gratifying.. Therefore we have primacy of emotions/primacy of passion.. since that is the entire basis of the value judgments upon which our reason is based on in the first place.. As Nietzsche said.. the purpose of reason is not to null out our passions.. but rather to maximize them.. passion being the primary drive.. Otherwise explain to me how a value judgement such as that career choice decision becomes anything other than emotional.. path 1 being an emotional decision to place ones existence and saftey above everything.. path 2 being an emotional decision to place the emotional gratifications of ones work above everything.. that is also where Im saying Rands theorem falls apart.. as she chooses for you.. to place your life above everything.. when really that in itself is a subjective choice to work from... she already chose career path #1...since according to her premise.. that is the correct career path since it directly promotes ones own well being.. whereas the other career path potentially risks ones own well being for a simple emotional satisfaction... she says no value judgement can be higher than ones own existence and well being.. Its very similar to selfishness vs altruism.. the essence is either a subjective decision to place ones life above everything, or anothers life above everything.. if Rand was to call altruism objectively wrong.. she would also have to call career path #2 objectively wrong.. since it potentially sacrifices own well being for a "greater cause" which is not directly related to ones own well being, but rather his "emotional" well being.. which in itself is not decided through reason, but simply IS... as one cannot simply decide to like engineering better than art if he has an inner drive to be an artist and not an engineer.. same with Altruism.. lets say someones emotional drive is to place the llives of others ahead of his own.. as I see it that becomes his decision to make and is objectively neither right nor wrong Or even take the dichotomy in virtue of selfishness.. of whether to save a loved one drowning or not if you risk your own life.. she says.. if you cannot live without the loved one then do it.. but you cannot live without them EMOTIONALLY.. NOT materially.. you dont rescue a loved one because they are paying your bills.. but for EMOTIONAL reasons.. therefore the primacy of the choice again becomes emotional.. what if your need for emotional gratification for your career choice is the same.? that you cannot live unless you have the emotional gratification from your career choice? does it become reasonable to risk your well being to pursue that career? and if so.. isnt that just primacy of passion? do you see what im getting at? maybe im missing something..
  2. Suppose we turn to p. 24 of Philosophy: Who Needs It (ed. Peikoff, Signet, 1982). There, in an article entitled “The Metaphysical and the Man-Made,” (1973) Rand states “...the basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy: the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness.” To contrast existence and consciousness in this way is dubious since consciousness, if it is not nothing, exists. But I won’t pursue this line of critique; I will instead consider what Rand could mean by the primacy of existence. The primacy of existence is “the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity.” If we think about Rand’s axiom, we see that it conflates three distinct propositions: P1: Each thing exists independently of any consciousness. P2: Each thing satisfies the Law of Identity in that, for each x, x = x. P3: The identity of each thing consists in its possession of a specific nature. Clearly these three are logically distinct. P2 is the least controversial of the three, for all it says is that each thing is self-identical. This is an admissible axiom since it is a law of logic. (An axiom is an ultimate premise, one that cannot be supported by logically deriving it from more basic premises.) But P2 does not entail P1. For if each thing is self-identical, it does not follow that each thing exists independently of any consciousness. To see this, suppose that God exists and creates everything distinct from himself. On this supposition, each thing distinct from God is self-identical but precisely NOT independent of any consciousness. Since P2 does not entail P1, these two propositions are logically distinct. Note that all I need is the mere possibility of God’s existence to show the failure of entailment. Rand is deeply confused. She thinks that to say that x is self-identical is to say something about x’s mode of existence, namely, that x exists independently of any consciousness. If this were true, a mere law of logic would entail not only the nonexistence of God, but also the necessary nonexistence (i.e., the impossibility) of God. What’s more, it amounts to a solving by logical fiat of the problem of the external world. If Rand were right, one would be able to prove that an object of perception exists apart from its being perceived by simply pointing out that it is self-identical. Yonder mountain, quaobject of perception, is of course self-identical; but that scarcely proves that it exists independently of my consciosness of it. Now consider an Aristotlean accident such as the being-tanned of Socrates. (Our man has been out in the sun, hence he is tanned, but he might have remained indoors.) An accident exists only in a substance, unlike a substance which exists in itself. An accident cannot exist in itself or by itself. Yet substances and accidents are both self-identical. It follows that self-identity implies nothing about mode of existence. To point out that x is self-identical leaves wide open whether x is an accident, a substance, a mind-dependent entity, a mind-independent entity, an abstract object, a concrete object, a process, a continuant, a nonexistent object of an hallucination, an existent object of a veridical perception, etc. In sum, Rand is attempting to squeeze controversial metaphysical assertions out of a mere logical axiom. It can’t be done. It is also clear that P2 does not entail P3. P2 merely says that each thing is self-identical. But this implies nothing as to natures. If a thing has a nature, then it has some essential properties. But it is possible, and many philosophers have held, that all of a thing’s properties are accidental. Therefore, it is possible that a thing be self-identical and yet have only accidental properties – which shows that P2 does not entail P1. P1 is also distinct from P3 in that the negation of P1 is consistent with P3. Suppose we adduce a further passage: “To grasp the axiom that existence exists, means to grasp the fact that nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated, that it cannot come into or go out of existence.” (P. 25) Rand goes on to say that the universe is “ruled” by “the Law of Identity.” (Ibid.) Any professional philosopher should be able to see how pitiful this is. Let’s not worry about Big Bang cosmology according to which the universe precisely did come into existence some 15 billion years ago. Instead, let us ask ourselves how one can validly infer a statement about the nature of the existence of existing things, namely, that they cannot come into or pass out of existence, from a mere law of logic. Suppose we construct an argument on Rand’s behalf: 1. Necessarily, every x is self-identical. 2. To exist = to be self-identical Therefore 3. Necessarily, every x exists Therefore 4. Every x exists necessarily. Therefore 5. No x exists contingently. Therefore 6. No x can come into existence or pass out of existence. The problem with this argument lies with premise (2). Rand needs (2), but (2) does not follow from (1). (2) must be brought in as a separate premise. But, unlike (1), (2) is scarcely self-evident. For even if it is true that x exists iff x = x, it does not follow from this that the existing of x consists in x’s being self-identical. It is conceivable that there be a nonexistent object such as Pegasus that is self-identical but does not exist. This shows that the biconditional given is circular: x exists iff x = x & x exists. There is more to existence than self-identity. Furthermore, what Rand’s view implies is that the universe is made up of basic constituents, each of which is a necessary being (since the existence of each = its self-identity). This further implies modal Spinozism, the doctrine that there is exactly one possible world, the actual world. For if each of the basic constituents cannot come into existence or pass out of existence, then the collection of these constituents – the universe – cannot come into existence or pass out of existence. (Trust me, I am not committing the fallacy of composition.) But if the universe CANNOT come into existence or pass out of existence, then its actual existence entails its necessary existence, which entails in turn that no other universe is possible. My point is not that modal Spinozism is false – although I do believe it to be false – but that this extremely controversial thesis is not equivalent to the Law of Identity. Thus, those of us who deny modal Spinozism are not trying “to exempt man from the Law of Identity.” (P. 26) Besides,if this law “rules the universe,” how could any mere philosophy professor exempt anybody from it.
  3. LMFAOOOO MAN THIS IS TOO FUNNY TOO FUNNY IN FACT.. rather than answering any of my propsitions or questions.. all I have people attacking me for is that I havent read enough of Rands materials.. ok.. forget that .. and just answer my questions.. how about that
  4. ok explain to me how passion is explained through logic and reason since you know so much... let me ask you this... if the measure of all morality is what benefits ones life, and we dont chase emotions becuase chasing emotions = hedonism = bad... then you are offered with two career paths 1. go to school, get a doctorate in engineering, work hard, get a good stable job that will last for a long time and make a lot of money 2. risk it all, screw everything, no back up plan, become an artist, because you would rather die than do anything else.. you chase your passion.. there is no seeming rationality behind it.. its just what you FEEL.. In essence choice 1 is based around whats best for your well being.. choice 2 is based around risking your life and your well being for a higher purpose, a passion, a will to power, an emotional cause.. here is what a famous musican named Travis Barker did He got tatoos all over his body just so nobody would ever FOR SURE hire him for any other job.. In essense he risked his well being in order to chase his passions.. and he made it.. you realize that just about all famous artists picked the second choice right? you actually cant do both.. everyone who attempts to do that never makes it as a big time artist.. because too much time and focus is dedicated away from the art.. if you wish to make a living as an artist for real.. it becomes your full time career.. does that make them "immoral hedonists?" what about the guy who picked the stable job.. then at the end of his life realizes he should have risked it all.. since he only had one life.. and the only thing that really mattered in his life were his experiences.. that living just for the sake of existance was rather nonsensical.. that his life was boring and bland, because he never took the risk.. and now he regrets it.. in this case how does passion interrelate with logic.. other than logically deciding to chase your emotions as the primary cause Its like Nietzsche said.. most rationalists would pick choice one.. because they are weak.. they are too concerned about their well being etc... whereas the strongest man, the uberman would pick option two.. because he knows a life not fully lived through passion is not worth living dude i know logic and math are the same damn thing you gotta be kidding me.. do I think my mind is a pie chart? No.. but i certainly dont think its a damn calculator even more hahaha who is John Galt?
  5. lol man OF COURSE I understood it was with algebra.. logic and math are in the same intelligence sector.. did you know it also had to do with Isaac Newton?????? my question is how do you define this through logic and algebra if passions dont exist and emotions are not tools of cognition or decision making how about this or how about the process I used to score this video? did everything begin with mathematical formulations of logic first? this all began with mathematical algebraic decisions and not with emotions? 360 million people must really relate to algebra.. must be.. because apparently all emotional decisions are bound to end in disaster.. thats why you should never follow your passions.. only an idiot would do that just ask this rich and famous guy on cnn.. hell tell you
  6. you know what totally cracks me up is how people just totally ignored what i wrote on the last page and started throwing Rand quotes at me ok lets put everything aside an focus on these prior posts particularly in reference to post 95, 98 and post 97 I really like how people ignored that and what me and Matt were saying for a minute.. When I was talking about using emotions as tools of cognition.. we were talking about "intangible" things.. etc.. I showed an example of a DJ set where the whole time through I used emotions as tools of cognition.. BALANCED with reason.. BUT NOT exclusively reason with emotions playing no role in decision making.. emotion were used to DECIDE and MAKE VALUE JUDGEMENTS .. not just as tools of post-evaluation... was that dj set "immoral" then? I also showed a video I made with music for a BMW commercial.. where I used strictly emotions balanced with reason for tools of cognition to make value judgements on sounds to place to the video.. core value judgements being made with emotion.. balanced with reason.. was that video also "immoral"? basically lets focus for a minute on what me and Matt were talking about for a moment on "intangibles".. where things are not strictly all calculated with logic.. but rather "felt"
  7. all I did was try to clear up some space and unneccessary jumble as to not further confuse the discourse.. As I feel that matt has already actually touched on exactly the very issue i am trying to speak of.. that post was no longer neccessary.. i didnt want anyone going back and responding to it since that would only take me off topic
  8. ok enough of self boistering.. but check it out... here is a mix i did for a dj set and recorded.. If you want to know what im saying.. watch it for at least a few minutes.. if you like dance music.. you may just be captivated !you can see me live playing off "feel".. I didnt just come up with some formulas and map it all out rationally based on what scientifically affected the human body.. every move i make has to do with me using emotions as tools of cognition lol I love this mix.. too bad it got taken down from youtubes search results for copyrighted music In the beggingin for the first 3-5 mintues its tight but im kind of "getting in teh zone".. then after that it just takes off when im fully "in teh zone" this mix got 5 star ratings on youtube when it was up.. for some reasons apparently beyond my reasoned comprehension.. i guess people "vibed" with it.. now here is my question.. what kind of intelligence does it take to be a good dj and keep an audience captivated?? certainly not the same type of intelligence it takes to proove logical theorems and do math this takes us back to the 8 intelligences chart: LOGICAL INTELLIGENCE IS ONLY 1 TYPE OF INTELLIGENCE people can be utterly brilliant at discourses in logic... but be utterly retarded in everything else this is usually the place where "geeks who think they are smarter than everybody else but cant see the world around them" fall into.. people who live ONLY by logic.. and wear pocket protectors and glasses straps because "they make sense and they are ergonomic".. they have no sense of "style" or "character/charisma" because that is "illogical nonsense" so Nietzches "passions" are irrational and mystical and dont exist HMMMMM>? HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM? Passions do not exist!! they are irrational and mystical!! this dj is just hiding secret logical dj formulas from us!! to quote her directly from the lexicon and to quote her directly again again all this is only proof of how little Rand knew of psychology as she told Nathaniel Brandon.. and i quote her directly: and Nathaniel quotes what I am going after Is not Rands views on capitalism, etc.. but directly on her views that "everything is objective.. there is no subjectivity.. there is no inspiration, there is no passion.. that is all mystical irrational garbage.. everything is either based directly in logic and intellectualism, or it is stupid and irrational and fake" at least thats what i have understood her to be saying Also as a final point on this.. it seems to me that for example .. many people speak of "following your heart" or "following your passions" when picking a career.. it seems Rand would call these "irrational impulses " that "primacy of passion doesnt exist.. but rather primacy of reason.. and that is based on whats best for the continuation of ones life" meaning.. dont follow your heart because there is no such thing.. instead follow what makes you the most money.. notice specifically what she says at the end "its circular.. you exist to continue your existance.. whats the point" Rand argues against the existance of a seemingly incomprehensible "passion" "instinct" or "drive" like Nietzsche speaks of.. she im sure would refer to the chasing of one like this "irrational hedonism".. since she does not believe emotions are valid tools of cognition.. or valid reasons to make life decisions, etc.. Nietzsche speaks of this as being "weak minded reason".. that the sole purpose is self preservation.. because it is based in FEAR.. where as "strong minded higher reason" is based in a will to power.. and one is willing to risk and sacrifice ones own life and well being.. for a greater cause.. for ones passions.. Seems like Rand would advocate that it is "moral" to take the "safe high paying job" rather than trying to risk everything and go alll in and follow your passions.. unfortunately this does not lead to happiness.. but Rand speaks against pleasure seeking and against "hedonism" here is a good paper by Nathanael Brandon that goes into some detail of what happens when people repress their "emotional drives" in such a way as being "irrational"... and the consequences of Rand not knowing anything about psychology http://mol.redbarn.o...AndHazards.html
  9. This refers to just one of your many jumbled dichotomies/concepts/definitions. As far as I can tell, here you are confusing "irrational" with "intangible." Intangible refers to "things that are recognized but not easily quantified" (source: wikipedia). It is indeed extremely difficult, if not impossible, to measure qualities like "timing" or "charisma," but that does not mean that these qualities are mindless or irrational. It means that they are not quantifiable or that their quantifiability exists beyond human perception. I think you are getting at the point that there are times when we utilize these qualities based on "feeling," and this is basically true in a short run sense. A comedian does not sit down and litterally chart out how many miliseconds he waits before saying the next word in his routine. But again, this is not generally irrational. The comedian is conciously and RATIONALLY aware of his skill with "timing" and thus has parlayed this ability into stand up comedy. He RATIONALLY determined the value of his timing and its use. When he is on stage he is likely "in the zone" and acting on instinct or memory muscle, but the entire context of his actions are taking place within rational bounds. Though I don't know how much you will get out of this explanation since you refuse to consider the true meaning of "reason" (it is not just "cause and effect"). AAHH AAHH... OK I THINK YOU ARE GETTING ME....... YOU ARE GETTING ME.. ok... intangible ... ok.. I WILL TAKE THAT.. ok... wikipedia defines irrational as: It is more specifically described as an action or opinion given through inadequate use of reason, emotional distress, or cognitive deficiency. The term is used, usually pejoratively, to describe thinking and actions that are, or appear to be, less useful, or more illogical than other more rational alternatives - ok according to that definition.. i will accept your word "intangible" at least in my understanding I believe Ayn Rand called these "intangible" things to be "irrational, mystical, and nonexistant" - there is much evidence for this as far as Im aware if you listen to her.. unless I am missing something.. although I will amend "cannot easily be explained" to "has never yet been totally explained.. and has a possibility of never being explained" perfect... lets use your own words.. "he is likely "in the zone" and acting on instinct" - you said muscle memory also.. but I think that has more to do with sports.. this is more like "brain muscle" memory.. if you can say that.. comedy in particular.. and every joke has a slightly different timing.. which has to do with being able to read the crowd and their "vibe" as well.. so its not like a repetitive movement which can be calculated this is very similar to when I have worked with musicians in a recording studio, and worked with professional engineers.. who explained that musicans have many rules for their "vibe" .. and this is part of their proffessional work is to understand that.. like many musicians cannot play if you keep interrupting them, or if the lights arent right.. or unless they go through some ritual.. it is "seemingly irrational" but doesnt fit the definition of irrational since it works and its not less useful than other alternatives.. so i would stick with "intangibile".. this is so serious.. that if a Recording Engineer doesnt understand how to work with these concepts.. he may lose his job.. same thing like if a comedian cannot work with "vibe and timing" he will lose his job.. also I have had many similar "intangible" experiences myself when working on my music and trust me im no crappy amateur musican .. you can hear some of my work on this site: check it out.. check out this bmw commercial demo soundtrack I made in my spare time.. BMW is my favorite car.. I have no idea why.. I used the visuals to inspire the sounds.. HOW did this happen? NO IDEA.. explain that WHERE did i come up with these ideas "rationally"??? seems more "intangible" to me than anything YOU SAID: " there are times when we utilize these qualities based on "feeling," that is EXACTLY what I am saying.. so Im not sure if this proves what im saying in terms of definitions or not.. but what it shows me.. unless im just defining something wrong.. is that emotions CAN be used as tools of cognition and decision in that sense and as far as i know things like "in the zone" or "instinct" were things which Ayn Rand did not agree with.. it is one of the reasons she called Nietzsche a mystic and an irrationalist .. because he believed in concepts such as "instinct".. where as she didnt I think she would call "working off vibe" "feel" or "irrationality" as being "irrational mystical concepts.. and that emotions couldnt be used as tools of cognition" let me quote her again
  10. to me.. narcissism is a virtue.. even though Ayn Rand never said it
  11. I challenge anybody who disagrees with me to logically explain at least this one very real phenomenon.. a comedians "timing" and "feel"... why are there no books that one can read, rationally comprehend, and then instantly become funny? until somebody proves this we have nothing to talk about
  12. ahhh.. humor.. the morally corrupt practice of denegrating things of metaphysical importance.. wake up and live life I apologize to any geeks who were offended.. I just had to use emotions as tools of cognition there for a moment because I felt like it would make my point better ;) lets say one ttries to look cool rationally to be percieved better by people.. but how does one do it? where is the formula? I think we have all seen these guys.. geeks on the prowl why doesnt it look cool? do my glasses not fit the golden ratio he says? - i must read more books!
  13. I am not arguing against reason Neither am I arguing against emotion I am not arguing against objective reality Neither am I arguing against subjective choices I am actually bringing together both to say they are all valid when they are valid to dismiss irrationality/emotion/"mysticism" and subjective reality entirely and call it garbage is absolutely retardo in my book As far as identification of what emotions are... according to science.. the ultimate objective study... NOBODY KNOWS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! aka :"irrational mysticism".. the truth about objective science is.. we are in the infancy stages of understanding the brain.. and nobody has yet formulated a rational logical explanation to everything.. to tell you the truth one of the funniest phenomenon in thinking which i see so often among people in modern society is.. evidence shows that :ABCDEFG = 100 people run out and say A = 100!!! .. then someone else runs out and says NO B = 100!.. then someone else runs out and says.. YOURE ALL WRONG ITS E= 100.. then someone else says entierly incorrectly.. NO ITS Q = 100! then someone else says.. NO 100 = 100! for example people argue all day.. "money buys happiness!" .. "no.. its close relationships that bring happiness!" "no its fancy cars and fame!" "no.. its being healthy and fit!".. "no.. its being mentally strong!".. when in reality its ALL OF THOSE.. the argument is NILL.. except for peopel who hold the position that their and only their point of reference is right.. one should also beware of biases in language.. such as "emotions are what one experiences as a response to something".. which means that one cannot decide things based off emotion.. "intuition is what one can decide things from" "mysticism is witch doctory" "mysticism is anything irrational" the truth is many of these grammatical word plays do nothing but confuse us.. I believe Nietzche spoke of this too.. the truth is ... if we took away these definitions and simply looked at the picture for what it is.. things may become much clearer and split into rather different categories than our language allows a good example of this is the word "greed" which is defined as "having more than one needs" having an automatically negative assumption.. this word is in itself rather inaccurate and not well put together... and implies a definition which is not well defined or explicitly made clear right now the sunlight is coming from my window and shining on my walls in a way which gives me a very posltive "vibe" which caused me to open my window.. is it rationally explained that the reason for this is because I know its not the end of the world since the sun is out? For example I am a big believer in "feng shuei".. not all their rules.. but in general.. the way you arrange your furniture in your house.. and the look of your furniture and accessories can have a great degree of affect onto your emotional state.. and i personally like modern european style better than lets say classic spanish style.. how can you objectively rationally explain that? how am i not using my feelings as tools of cogition by which to organize my house or live my life in truth I believe that this makes a large portion of the philosophy of objectivism nill.. since the whole point of objectivism is that everything is objective.. and subjectivists believe everything is subjective.. but everybody really knows its a mixture of both ;).. if you really break down the argument into different terms you can see the stupidity of it.. one side says everything is fact.. one side says everything is opinion.. yet 95% of normal people on the street understand some things are debatable facts and others are undebatable opinions.. even the example on brain surgery becomes rather rediculous.. for when you dont think too damn much about it it just becomes "obvious" you dont use opinions to operate on brains.. it doesnt even take a philosophy book to explain it I actually read a series of articles once which described that "thinking too much" is a problem among people.. and it takes them away from their true nature.. it is almost like a mental infestation/disease.. he refered to how pure natural thinking is closest to its true state.. then over rationalizing breaks down the mind and takes us further away from our true nature and confuses us If you can look at it like this you may see.. how thinking too much can become a disease and make us less effective in many matters in which we simply should not think so much.. I know it sounds like a wild proposition.. but think about it.. we have to have a 5 page discourse to come to the conclusion that some things are objective facts, some things are subjective opinions, and some things like music belong to a category which nobody really knowws.. a conclusion that most normal.. even stupid people on teh street would be able to come to very quickly there is an area of intellegence called "common sense" which many very rational people have problems with funny enough.. common sense indicates to us when we should use objective reasoning, or subjective opinion or feeling.. people who only understand logic cannot understand this type of intellegence.. they dont know when to use logic or not use it.. they need somebody to give them some sort of a formula so they can clearly understand.. logic is not the highest form of intellengce.. in fact many "logical" people and careers have been replaced by computers nowadays.. And if logic were the only form of proper thinking... we would have created AI robots which were the "coolest" robots around and which could compose better music than anybody else.. and have more "Swagger" than anybody else.. since they are PERFECTLY rational.. and NEVER make logical mistakes.. ITs like DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHH.. thats what im trying to point out the whole time in this argument In many ways people who think too much are actually not intellegent enough to see what is right in front of their face.. its like you are blind to anything which cannot be mathematically reverse engineered Its like.. pure rationalists are already out done by computers.. they are barely trying to catch up to the intellegence of a simple logic calculator... while normal "stupid" people are 10000000 times smarter and quicker than comptuers or calculators Teh glassez is Rational.. dey help me zee better.. and my hair is rationally dezigned 2 be aerodynamic so i can walk faster.. Da hottest rational value judgement trend of the day... "I am not doing anything irrational! - I am the perfect human! - them irrational mystical rapstarz who be fuckin all dem bitchez is so morally corrupt!" rational door lock... promoting and practicing the virtue of intellegence for every visitor.. making the world a better place..] another excellently designed aerodynamic haircut to help him run 0.1 mile an hour faster to evade predators.. therefore being morally virtuous since it is for the benefit of his life